Page 14 of 15 FirstFirst ... 412131415 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 149

Thread: Another Look At The Latest Nouveau Gallium3D Driver

  1. #131
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Ya that might be a concern on a 8088 but not on a modern processor. Your scenario only occurs if the processor can only marginally run the kernel on it's own.
    define marginally ? thats kind of my point to. Its all about system overhead " at a certain point it becomes meaningless" but it can be a big factor in how capable hardware can be in a given situation.

  2. #132
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thatguy View Post
    define marginally ?
    Barely able to

  3. #133
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Barely able to
    I think those days "aside from ARM' are pretty much way behind us. even the most basic systems at walmart 2 cores can easily play video without any acceleration at all.

  4. #134
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thatguy View Post
    I think those days "aside from ARM' are pretty much way behind us. even the most basic systems at walmart 2 cores can easily play video without any acceleration at all.
    You would be surprised. Your "tests" are not for example using sound methodology. As I pointed out before:

    1) You have selected a fairly light example of video, I gave you a more "typical" encode that falls within many hd program streams. Even it however is nowhere close to being a typical h264 stream on say a bluray.

    2) you are not playing them back at full resolution, by the looks of it you are running your system @ 1280x1024 which equates to less then 1/2 the amount of pixels (output of the video would be if running fullscreen 1280x720) the display has to render as it would on a 1080p machine. For any meaningful results you would have to be rendering the output at the videos native resolution.

  5. #135
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    You would be surprised. Your "tests" are not for example using sound methodology. As I pointed out before:

    1) You have selected a fairly light example of video, I gave you a more "typical" encode that falls within many hd program streams. Even it however is nowhere close to being a typical h264 stream on say a bluray.

    2) you are not playing them back at full resolution, by the looks of it you are running your system @ 1280x1024 which equates to less then 1/2 the amount of pixels (output of the video would be if running fullscreen 1280x720) the display has to render as it would on a 1080p machine. For any meaningful results you would have to be rendering the output at the videos native resolution.
    It doesn't make a difference, it still also has to cut bitrate and dither which costs clock. being as my video hardware is unsupported I can only display at that resolution currently.

    But seriously. Its a non issue. 99% of users aren't compiling a kernel while watching a video. Usually they are watching just the video.

    Also the bit rate of big buck bunny is typical of most video streaming bit rates. I have no idea where your comming up with the counter argument.

    I can even play 4 of the same video in the same size simultanoeusly which was my point.

    In todays day and age of fast cpu for x86, we simply don't have a huge pressing need for video accelration.

    Its like chasing a white elephant, it only makes you tired.

    Now if your saying that ARM needs vide accelration. I whole heartedly agree. But most of todays modern dual core and up systems are completely cpabale of playing video with zero acceleration and 1980x1020 isn't even all that popular. most video on pcs are DVD or lower quality. blue Ray players aren't even very common acesseories yet.

  6. #136
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thatguy View Post
    It doesn't make a difference, it still also has to cut bitrate and dither which costs clock. being as my video hardware is unsupported I can only display at that resolution currently.
    I most assuredly know that it does make a difference. This is easily seen when resizing a window while the video is playing. The bigger the window, the greater the load.

    But seriously. Its a non issue. 99% of users aren't compiling a kernel while watching a video. Usually they are watching just the video.
    No they may not be compiling a kernel but they may be doing items such as recording, timeshifting while watching another show which depending on your capture hardware can do. Many devices rely on software encoding and that starts adding up to the load.

    Also the bit rate of big buck bunny is typical of most video streaming bit rates. I have no idea where your comming up with the counter argument.
    It is hardly representative of HD bitrates. Maybe for webstreaming but not for anykind of local playback. The sample I put up however is very representative of the video one can expect from HD Rips, HD stream captures, HD personal video cameras, HD video encoders, etc. It falls within the specs of a typical AVCHD format that many consumer devices record to.

    I can even play 4 of the same video in the same size simultanoeusly which was my point.
    Doesn't mean anything if you can't decode even a medium bitrate HD stream (Let alone one that is CABAC instead of CAVLC).

    In todays day and age of fast cpu for x86, we simply don't have a huge pressing need for video accelration.
    Oh how wrong you are as it allows for smaller form factor devices with less power hungry processors that can be freed to do other tasks. CPU decoding is like trying to use a clawhammer to pound in a railway tie spike. Sure it can be done but it isn't efficient at all.

    Now if your saying that ARM needs vide accelration. I whole heartedly agree. But most of todays modern dual core and up systems are completely cpabale of playing video with zero acceleration
    With no post processing, scaled down video sure they are and they are extremely inefficient at it.

    and 1980x1020 isn't even all that popular.
    WHAT? lol you have to be kidding me. It is pretty much the standard.

    most video on pcs are DVD or lower quality. blue Ray players aren't even very common acesseories yet.
    Oh man you must live under a rock someplace (here I thought I lived in the boonies). HD is everywhere. From the TV you watch live, to the streaming content, to the devices like Bluray. If it isn't there ask your self why is it that a majority of TV's and monitors are 1080p nowdays?

  7. #137
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    I most assuredly know that it does make a difference. This is easily seen when resizing a window while the video is playing. The bigger the window, the greater the load.
    umm, not on my pc it doesn't. but you know. I'm not gonna keep having a symantical debate.



    No they may not be compiling a kernel but they may be doing items such as recording, timeshifting while watching another show which depending on your capture hardware can do. Many devices rely on software encoding and that starts adding up to the load.

    I'd be more concerend about disk write speed if I was watching and recording video at the same time. especially with one HDD in the machine

    It is hardly representative of HD bitrates. Maybe for webstreaming but not for anykind of local playback. The sample I put up however is very representative of the video one can expect from HD Rips, HD stream captures, HD personal video cameras, HD video encoders, etc. It falls within the specs of a typical AVCHD format that many consumer devices record to.
    its 1980 x1020 16:9 1gb file for a 4 minute video. thats pretty damn representitive of typical bit rates found on blue rays.



    Doesn't mean anything if you can't decode even a medium bitrate HD stream (Let alone one that is CABAC instead of CAVLC).

    give me a stream I will benchmark decoding it. I am not even remotely concerned. Again you point is moot on most modern hardware.


    Oh how wrong you are as it allows for smaller form factor devices with less power hungry processors that can be freed to do other tasks. CPU decoding is like trying to use a clawhammer to pound in a railway tie spike. Sure it can be done but it isn't efficient at all.
    yes becuase a 13 inch netbook screen render beautfiul 1024x780 images.

    your making a argument against not for video acceleration. How HD does a 3.5 inch screen need to be ?

    With no post processing, scaled down video sure they are and they are extremely inefficient at it.
    I'm not suffering.



    WHAT? lol you have to be kidding me. It is pretty much the standard.
    whats the standard ? 480 web video ? yeah its pretty much standard.



    Oh man you must live under a rock someplace (here I thought I lived in the boonies). HD is everywhere. From the TV you watch live, to the streaming content, to the devices like Bluray. If it isn't there ask your self why is it that a majority of TV's and monitors are 1080p nowdays?[/QUOTE]

    TV and Blue ray is the only thing "aside from gaming" ushing bit rate in any direction beyond 680.

    thats how it is. the bulk of videos online are sub 480.

    I have a 65 inch TV in my living room and a 1080p cable servie with 150 hd channels. I don't watch TV on my 23 inch monitor.

  8. #138
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thatguy View Post
    Seriously ?

    I mean I can decode mp4 1080p just fine with 50% of one 3.2 ghz cpu core no problem.
    Have you tried it on say a machine like a HTPC with an Intel E3300 while it's also say recording two or three shows as well?

  9. #139
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thatguy View Post
    I'd be more concerend about disk write speed if I was watching and recording video at the same time. especially with one HDD in the machine
    Shouldn't concern you at all, I regularly record 2 or 3 HD streams at once on one drive. With the cache buffers that are around today it is not a concern.

    its 1980 x1020 16:9 1gb file for a 4 minute video. thats pretty damn representitive of typical bit rates found on blue rays.
    Hardly, nice stretch of the facts however. It is a 690 meg file for a 10 minute clip with CAVLC encoding at an average of 9Mbit/s encoding, that is not even close to even AVHCD standards let alone bluray. Can you exaggerate any more? (1080P h264 version).

    give me a stream I will benchmark decoding it. I am not even remotely concerned. Again you point is moot on most modern hardware.
    I gave you a link to a representative stream in the earlier posts.

    yes becuase a 13 inch netbook screen render beautfiul 1024x780 images.
    your making a argument against not for video acceleration. How HD does a 3.5 inch screen need to be ?
    Lol, netbooks no but nettops are extremely popular for hooking up as a HTPC on a 1080p TV home theater. Nice diversion of the subject at hand.

    I'm not suffering.
    See above posts why, try some real HD content typical of HD content.

    whats the standard ? 480 web video ? yeah its pretty much standard.
    LMFAO, you thing everybody just watches youtube?

    TV and Blue ray is the only thing "aside from gaming" ushing bit rate in any direction beyond 680.
    lol, that's a fairly big use for video don't you think?

    thats how it is. the bulk of videos online are sub 480.
    Again streaming online video is not the majority of what people watch video on.

    I have a 65 inch TV in my living room and a 1080p cable servie with 150 hd channels. I don't watch TV on my 23 inch monitor.
    So do I, I do however have a very nice low power PC that serves as a complete media hub for playback of all HD materials. Cableboxes are all hooked up to the PC, where it gives me ample storage room and ability to do simple things like edit out commercials and store them for later use on the multiple HD TV's we have around the house where everybody can enjoy them in a location where they please. Probably the number one use of net tops is for HD HTPC setups.

  10. #140
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    Have you tried it on say a machine like a HTPC with an Intel E3300 while it's also say recording two or three shows as well?
    I can easily do that on a underclocked X2 processor @ 800 Mhz and still timeshift thanks to video decode acceleration and hardware encoding. All the while consuming extremely little power.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •